Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters dictionary

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Deepanshu Gautam
<deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
> Inline...
>
> Deepanshu Gautam
> Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
> O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:11 AM
>> To: Deepanshu Gautam
>> Cc: James Hawkins; Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
>> dictionary
>>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Deepanshu Gautam
>> <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
>> > Some question on the latest draft.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent should ignore the suggested services from
>> > the intent invocation if the user already has a handler selected." The last
>> > time I heard about this
>> > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Apr/0085.html),
>> > it was decided to user "MAY" here. Has it been changed? Why?
>>
>> The "MAY" there was about the registration of suggested services.
>>
>> I'm open to changes in this wording. If you think it ought to be one
>> way or another.
>
> [DG] If the assumption is: "not to show the Suggestion unless the picker is empty" then this statement is wrong. As I said, the user may not have selected the handler just yet (bcz this is the first time), but the matching services exists and should be listed in the picker. So, I suggest to delete the entire statement or change it to MAY at least.

I'm confused here. There are two sentences (which perhaps should be in
different paragraphs) about two different pieces of behavior:

"The User Agent should ignore the suggested services from the intent
invocation if the user already has a handler selected."

and

"The User Agent may ask the user if they wish to install all or any of
the suggested services, just as for any other visit of those pages."

Could you rewrite them the way you think they ought to be so I can see
the difference?


>
>>
>> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent must follow the matching algorithm of the
>> > "Matching action and type for delivery" section before delivering the Intent
>> > to a suggested service, just as for any Intent delivery." Why this is
>> > needed? Isn't that the "suggestions" are provided in the picker only after
>> > matching Action and Type (section 3.3 Invocation API)? Why Action and Type
>> > have to matched again at Delivery? I think this applies to Intent in
>> > general. Am I missing something?
>>
>> The UA or client's data may be stale. The final authority is the page
>> as loaded at delivery time, which the UA must respect.
>
> [DG] So, suppose it (matching fails at delivery) happens once for service ABC. Will that service be still listed for that particular action in future? Do we have to somehow spec the UA behavior in this case?
>
>>
>>
>> > At last, I asked this before also
>> > "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Apr/0085.html"
>> > and here it goes again.
>> >
>> > Can the functionality of "Suggestion" be achieved by extending "explicit
>> > intent" to have one or more values? If there is only one value (which will
>> > also mean that there is only one recommendation) then it will become
>> > "explicit Intent " i.e UA can load the service directly. If there are more
>> > than one values (or recommendations) then it will become "Suggestion" i.e UA
>> > may allow user to select from them. I think it makes sense to merge
>> > "explicit" and "suggestion" functionalities.
>>
>> I also had this intuition that there's a way to think about them in
>> the same way, but I'm convinced by earlier discussion that that's
>> confusing.  "explicit" has very different semantics from
>> "suggestions". Having one field with two semantics is confusing. (How
>> would you give only one suggestion?) It's better to have separate
>> fields for these two use cases. (Suggestions don't even make sense for
>> explicit intents.)
>>
>> Even if we decided "explicit" wasn't a MUST for the UA, they still
>> would mean something quite different.
>>
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Deepanshu Gautam
>> >
>> > Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
>> >
>> > O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: jhawkins@google.com [mailto:jhawkins@google.com] On Behalf Of James
>> > Hawkins
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:33 AM
>> > To: Greg Billock
>> > Cc: Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
>> > dictionary
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In an attempt to make this aspect of the feature more trustworthy, we should
>> > modify the language to be a bit more explicit about requirements:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > * MUST display a suggestion if the picker is otherwise empty.
>> >
>> > * SHOULD display the suggestion anyway.
>> >
>> > * MAY limit the number of suggestions shown
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think 'suggestions' will work the best from this list. I'm going to
>> > go ahead and add it with that name.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Greg wrote:
>> >>> >  sequence<URL> defaults;
>> >>>
>> >>> > Some questions.
>> >>> > First off, I don't like "defaults".
>> >>>
>> >>> Me neither
>> >>>
>> >>> > I think it makes
>> >>> > it sound like a more permanent default setting, which we want to
>> >>> > reserve for something arranged by the user and the UA.
>> >>>
>> >>> Right
>> >>>
>> >>> > I prefer
>> >>> > "recommendations".
>> >>> > Does that sound good? "recommendedServices"? Any
>> >>> better ideas?
>> >>>
>> >>> suggested
>> >>> known
>> >>> available
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> suggestions
>> >>
>> >
>> >

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 15:02:31 UTC